↓ Skip to main content

The Routine Use of Intracameral Antibiotics to Prevent Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery: How Good is the Evidence?

Overview of attention for article published in Ophthalmology and Therapy, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
The Routine Use of Intracameral Antibiotics to Prevent Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery: How Good is the Evidence?
Published in
Ophthalmology and Therapy, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40123-018-0138-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas K. George, Michael W. Stewart

Abstract

Post-operative endophthalmitis (POE) following cataract surgery is an uncommon, vision-threatening complication that has been reported to occur at rates of between approximately 0.03% and 0.2%. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of endophthalmitis is critical for minimizing vision loss, but most recent efforts have focused on the prophylactic administration of antibiotics to prevent the development of endophthalmitis. Surgeons from around the world have different topical and intracameral antibiotic usage patterns to prevent endophthalmitis, and to date no general consensus regarding best practice has emerged. Several studies have reported on the routine use of intracameral cefuroxime, moxifloxacin, and vancomycin, including a single randomized clinical trial by the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ESCRS) in 2007. These studies have notable shortcomings, but many authors suggest that intracameral cefuroxime together with topical antibiotics probably decreases the risk of endophthalmitis. However, the deleterious effects of routine prophylactic antibiotics, which include toxicity, cost, and increasing antimicrobial resistance, among others, are noteworthy. In contrast, aseptic technique with pre-operative instillation of povidone-iodine remains the only technique supported by level I evidence to reduce the incidence of endophthalmitis. Although the routine use of intracameral antibiotics continues to increase throughout the world, data from multicenter, randomized, prospective trials is needed to provide better guidance regarding the prophylactic use of antibiotics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 20 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,471,666
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Ophthalmology and Therapy
#132
of 584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,619
of 327,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ophthalmology and Therapy
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.